User:Cjlewis1204/Eastern hognose snake/Lilladlili Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

@Cjlewis1204

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Cjlewis1204/Eastern hognose snake

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Eastern hognose snake

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes! I find that your addition of a description of the characteristics of this snake and the specifics of its habitat helps flesh out the article and distinguish this particular snake species from others.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • I see you haven't edited the lead sentence, and I agree with you that it is already strong even without edits. If you did want to add something to the first sentence, you could probably incorporate the "upturned 'snout'" bit in there, but I think keeping it where you mentioned it is fine. Or you could move that sentence about the colorations and snout up to be the second sentence because I feel like these distinguishing factors are extra important for readers to understand immediately when they start skimming the lead.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The lead is a good length and gives a concise outline of what is to come.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Everything you mentioned in the lead is referenced more in-depth later in the article, so good job with that!
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I think the lead is a good length and detail overall! The one thing I might suggest removing is "This species prefers habitats with sandy soils and a combination of grass fields and forest edges" because I feel like the habitat preferences of the snake are not really imperative to getting an overview of the species from the lead, especially when you go on to repeat this info later in the "Habitat" portion of the article. Maybe instead you could say "The species is endemic to grassy fields and forest edges of Eastern North America" or something like that, combining it with other information from the lead rather than making it its own sentence.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Everything you added seemed relevant to me! I really like how you added "Behavior" and "Predator" sections, for those are definitely key factors in understanding more about this snake species.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • I see one of the sources (source #8) is from 1941, so that one is a little outdated. I see that is was used in the original article and not one that you found on your own, but I still might recommend just confirming this info with a more recent source if you can find one.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I don't see anything about the snake's natural diet in your sandbox draft, but I see there is a section in the original article that I am assuming you are planning on keeping. Diet is definitely an important aspect to keep around.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • No issues with any of this.

Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral?
  • For the most part, yes!
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • While I wouldn't say this is biased, I think the language used in "Geographic Range" to describe the snakes habitats in "extreme southern New Hampshire" is somewhat unclear and exaggerated. I can't really picture what "extreme" southern New Hampshire is, so it doesn't really add anything. I know it was in the original article and not your work, but I would still suggest removing it. There are a couple more uses of words like "extremely" and "very" sprinkled throughout that I might reconsider just because they don't sound neutral.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Nope!
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • Nope!

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • I don't see a citation for the information you added to "Geographic Range," so I would recommend adding one.
  • The sentence you added to "Description and Etymology" also lacks a citation.
  • I only see one source cited in the "Captivity" section, so I would recommend comparing this info to some other sources and including some information from them to ensure that the source is reliable and all your info isn't coming from one place.
  • The last sentence of the "Habitat" section isn't cited in the original article or your draft. Can you find a source that supports this information, even though you aren't the one who added it? If you are unable to find a source to support it, I would recommend removing it.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
  • I didn't observe any issues with this.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, the sources match the content and give depth and multiple aspects.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, except for one from 1941.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • It is difficult to tell, but there is a range of authors with some women included which is a good sign!
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
  • Museum websites, books written by experts, and peer-review articles have been used, so good job using vetted sources.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • I tried the links and was able to reach your sources!

Organization

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Overall, I would say the information you added is pretty clear and concise.
  • Minor edits I would recommend:
    • "They come in many different colorations and has the identifiable upturned 'snout'" <-- either change "they" to "it," or "has" to "have"
    • "H. platirhinos has a wide range..." <-- I would specify that it is a "geographic" range and add a comma before "for"
    • Can you define "dirurnal" for readers who aren't familiar?
    • "Laura E. Robson and Gabriel Blouin-Demers conducted a study and found that the Eastern hognose snake avoids crossing paved roads, increasing the isolation of populations." <-- this reads like a paper written for school. I would remove the people's names and state the information their study showed as a fact and then include the citation at the end because I think that is more acceptable in the Wikipedia community rather than naming authors of sources in the actual article itself.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I noted some run-on sentences sprinkled throughout as well as some places where commas are missing and should be added.
  • "Because there is such a wide range the snake is found there is variation in the population's climates which can cause the period of activity to change." <-- I would edit this sentence, I think there is a grammatical error that is making it difficult to understand
  • "Due to its burrowing nature, hognose snakes require suitable substrate depth to retain this natural instinct" <-- "Due to their burrowing nature..." maybe?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Overall, I think the organization is very strong and flows! I do have one minor suggestion, which is to remove the portion about human impacts from the "Predators" section. I feel like grouping humans into predators implies we are eating these snakes. Rather, I think this information will make more sense sprinkled throughout the "Conservation Status" portion of the article if you are planning on keeping that, or you probably even have enough information about this where you could make an entire subsection titled "Human Impacts."

Images and Media <-- I know there are no images yet, but I agree that the ones you are planning on adding will benefit the article!

Overall, you have a strong start! After some minor edits and the addition of some pictures, this will be a very strong wikipedia article :)